Dharmendra Kumar, S/O Sri Hari Ram vs Union Of India Through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad (U.P.) & Ors.

Om Prakash VII, Member J

By means of this Original Application (OA), the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and set-aside the order No. RRC/NCR/ALD/VIP Ref/2015 dated 18.9.2015 passed by respondent no.2;

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the matter of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Respondents to consider the application dated 7.9.2015 followed by another application dated 26.9.2015 of applicant for appointment in Group „D‟ against unfilled posts of handicapped quota pursuance to Notification 1/2010 with all consequential benefits for which a time bound order is fervently prayed;

(iii) to issue any other suitable order in favour of the humble applicant as deemed fit by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award cost of the application in favour of humble applicant.”

In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the applicant, pursuant to the notification issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, NCR, Allahabad for recruitment in Group ‘D’ post in different categories, had applied in the prescribed format well within the time under the reserved category of SC and Physically handicapped quota. After scrutiny of application forms, the applicant was called for to appear in the written examination alongwith other candidates wherein he was declared successful and thereafter he was called for documents verification on 16.10.2012. The applicant also appeared for medical examination wherein he was found fit under medical category A-2. Thereafter, when the applicant did not receive any response, he submitted an application on 15.4.2015. To this, he was informed vide letter dated 29.4.2015 that the panel of selected candidates against handicapped quota was received wherein the name of the applicant did not exist, with the result his name could not be considered. Being dissatisfied, the applicant preferred another application dated 13.8.2015 demanding the list of candidates selected against handicapped quota in the panel, in question, as well as his merit in the panel. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter dated 25.8.2015 by means of which 48 candidates against physically handicapped quota were empanelled, who obtained 73.27 marks and ranked at sl. No. 3663; whereas applicant obtained 72.24 marks and ranked at sl. No. 3945. Further, the applicant was called together with additional candidates belonging to physically handicapped quota.

2.1 According to the O.A., the respondent no.2 informed the applicant vide letter dated 18.9.2015 that out of 4692 advertised posts under notification no. 1/2010, 146 posts were reserved against handicapped quota, bifurcation of which comes to 48 posts of Orthopedically handicapped, 49 posts of visually handicapped and 49 posts of hearing handicapped. The candidates belonging to OH were selected and remaining 98 vacancies were left unfilled as per rules. Hence, the applicant cannot be considered and no such case of O.H. is pending. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant made another application on 26.9.2015 requesting therein that he may be considered against unfilled post in terms of Railway Board’s circular dated 21.6.2001 and his case may be considered for recruitment in Group ‘D’ post as he obtained marks 72.24/-, which is only 1.03 less than the maximum marks 73.27 of selected candidate. Hence this O.A.

Per-contra, the respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that the Railway Recruitment Cell has advertised 4692 Group ‘D’ posts including 3% quota of physically handicapped persons. 146 pots out of 4692 posts had been earmarked for physically handicapped quota. The applicant applied for Group ‘D’ post under OH category of physically handicapped quota. The respondents have further stated that though the applicant has been declared successful in the written examination, but his name was not considered within the zone of select list of eligible candidates on account of securing lower rank in merit of OH candidates. Thus, they have stated that the action of the respondents in not selecting the applicant under OH category of Handicapped quota is not faulty one and as such O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the pleadings available on record.

From the pleadings as narrated hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the applicant, pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent no.2, had applied under OH category of physically handicapped quota. It is admitted fact that though the applicant was declared successful in the written examination, but his name does not come within the zone of consideration as he secured 72.24 marks; whereas the last selected candidate has secured 73.27 marks and the name of the applicant did not come in the zone of consideration with the margin of 1.03 marks. The applicant has failed to point out rule or instructions, which was violated in not selecting the applicant on the post, in question. Since the applicant secured less marks i.e. 72.24 marks in comparison to the last selected candidate i.e. 73.27 marks and as such the applicant could not be selected on Group ‘D’ post. The applicant has not been able to suggest that what kind of rule or law has been violated by the respondents in completing the exercise for appointment on the post, in question. Not only that, we may also observe that the result of the post, in question, has been declared sometimes in the year 2012; whereas the instant O.A. has been filed in the year 2015 without disclosing the plausible and cogent ground for condoning the delay for not approaching the appropriate judicial forum. Thus, the O.A. is grossly barred by time as no proper explanation has been offered for the same.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized his argument that the claim of the applicant may be considered against unfilled post pursuant to letter dated 16.11.2015 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell as well as Railway Board’s circular dated 27.8.2009 conveying Master Circular no. 13 on the subject of Reservation of Jobs and Recruitment for physically handicapped persons in Group ‘C’ & D posts on Railways. Para 3 thereof provides for counting of vacancies and methodology for reservation. The same relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“The reservation of vacancies is to be made separately for each category. If candidates belonging to a category of persons are not available, persons from the other categories may be taken. In that case, the reservation would be deemed to have been utilized in pursuance of the principle of inter se exchange.”

From the plain reading of the above extract, it would amply be clear that if the candidates belonging to a category of persons are not available, persons from the other category may be taken. In the case, in hand, the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out that in other category in which he wants to be accommodated what is the cut off marks/minimum marks on which the last candidate was selected. In absence of which, no inference can be taken in favour of the applicant. Only a bald claim has been raised that his case may be considered in other category without disclosing the minimum marks for such category. Not only that, the word ‘may be taken’, in the above extracted para, meaning thereby it denote that the authorities concerned can accept it or not to accept it. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant has no leg to stand.

As already stated above in the pleadings that there is no vacancy under the OH category of physically handicapped quota and since the applicant has applied under OH category and that no vacancy is lying vacancy under that category, no relief can be granted to the applicant. The applicant’s prayer that his case may be considered for another category, that too cannot be considered at a belated stage especially when the process of selection pursuant to notification no. 1/2010 has already been completed long ago. Since the process of examination has already been over and there was no bungling in the same, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary in not selecting the applicant pursuant to notification no. 1/2010 as he secured less marks than the last selected candidate.

In view of the above discussions, the O.A. fails and is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly. No costs.

All the associated MAs stand disposed of.